An epic review for an epic movie? Quite the expectation from my girlfriend regarding her favourite film of all time! One thing I can certainly say is that this film has lent itself to over 70 years of critique, angst and adoration, which if anything indicates its power to divide and unite opinion and consecrate itself in American history.
The difficulty in knowing where to begin reflects the immense scale of the film and just how many themes, points and attractions people and fans latch on to. In essence, a popular and mainstream summary of this film would be that it is an epic telling of the demise of the South and the rise and fall of her personifying heroine. However the film, particularly clocking in at just short of four hours, clearly delves deeper than purely chronology. I have to confess that I haven’t read the book and only seen this film once so I may fall short of a deeper interpretation.
I’m aware she has many more faults than her preoccupation with Ashley. She lies and twists her way to the top, willingly endorses and profits from slavery, steps over her friends and family and has no remorse for it. However, these faults don’t bother me as much as the Ashley conundrum. Heroes don’t owe us moral platitudes. Scarlett does what she feels she has to do to keep her family warm and sheltered and naturally it evolves into obscene wealth but that defines the American Dream. A compelling argument for seeking the dream of rags to riches would be during the 1930s. If I consider other morally bereft heroes in cinema, we don’t tend to criticise them as much as we criticise Scarlett. Michael Corleone willingly kills, extorts and plots to protect his family and often those lines get severely crossed in his dream. Yet no one judges The Godfather as ‘epic but Michael is so flawed and mean’ so I don’t see why people attack Scarlett either. You could even draw parallels with Dirty Harry, morally defunct and hideously chauvinistic but he is the films hero and he is driven by a greater good of protecting the neediest. Scarlett is not without her faults but she is a true and arguably defining anti-hero. I can see the cost of her decisions and can easily foresee the demise of her actions but I still somehow root for her and sympathise. It takes a hell of a lot to draw sympathy despite her actions. 
Speaking of sympathy, Gable was superb. From his entrance scene, he played a rouge scoundrel to the highest degree. The chemistry between the two was just brilliant and, having seen a few Gable films; I am convinced that Gable’s chemistry is with the viewer rather than his co-star. He sweeps us up with rushed honest dialogue and gives the impression that he is in fact on stage rather than on screen, so electric is his performance. If there is anything to define the two it is one of these two quotes, ‘You, sir, are no gentleman. And you, miss, are no lady’ and ‘I believe in Rhett Butler, he's the only cause I know’. His appearances in the first act were almost spectral. He had an uncanny knack of appearing just when needed, dressed in white and always having the answers. Casing points would be the rescue of Scarlett from Atlanta and the rescue of Ashley from the Yankees. His role of a blockade runner doesn’t quite explain his vast wealth but that only adds to his mysterious nature. Despite his roguish sentiments, I felt for his plight and am moved when he weeps, much to Gable’s own chagrin. Although I can see Errol Flynn playing this role well, I am delighted it was Gable and I’m glad he was allowed to be himself so much.
In terms of how the film is made, I was constantly amazed. A film of this length needs momentum, and although it occasionally slowed down in spots, the drive and sense of occasion kept the film moving. I feel like the structure was broken down into little playlets, which served to keep characters moving and developing quicker than if they were left to their own devices. Within each of these playlets, the several directors were really enabled to explore clear cut themes more intensely. I particularly enjoyed the use of light and dark, it truly enhanced the benefit of shooting in colour and a significant scene was when Rhett was sitting in the dark mourning his daughter, who was bathed in light, an innocent in the power plays between her parents. Life and death were constantly highlighted in light and the blazing fire on an evening background of the burning of Atlanta emphasised the demise of the South. Finally, arguably the most iconic silhouette of the tree at Tara transposed against a majestic dawn shows the ever present life of earth and land against the short termism of war.
If there was to be an ever present feature of this film its land and earth. The opening exchanges between Scarlett and her father, ‘Do you mean to tell me, Katie Scarlett O'Hara, that Tara, that land doesn't mean anything to you? Why, land is the only thing in the world worth workin' for, worth fightin' for, worth dyin' for, because it's the only thing that lasts’. And it certainly is, although tomorrow is another day, land will always be there. It kick starts the film and Scarlett is drawn there at the end of act one and the film finishes there too. It is what homes and lives are built on, it is what food is grown in and it is where people are buried. Houses, lifestyles and excess can be blown away in the wind but not land. Perhaps what the films suggests is that, when tomorrow is another day, means that life goes on and grows, that is the only constant in life-fertility and nature. What will also be ever present will be Gone with the Winds place in cinematic history and Scarlett’s role as a definitive anti-hero.
Monster
